MEMBERS OF Savannah City Council have a responsibility to represent their constituents. At the same, they must respect the council-manager form of government when addressing citizen concerns.

Otherwise, it could hurt needed public services. Then the whole city loses.

At last Thursday’s City Council meeting, tension between southside Alderman Tony Thomas and Metro Police Chief Willie Lovett became evident during a briefing on strategies to reduce crime in individual police precincts.

Mr. Thomas questioned whether the department had a dedicated group of investigators to work on cold-case homicides — a legitimate question, as citizens often wonder what level of attention, if any, such cases receive. But then he lurched into seat-of-the-pants mode, claiming that the city had “well over 100” unsolved homicides.

The actual figure is 75 unsolved homicides since 2003. So why shoot from the hip? And why were these questions apparently directed at the chief, who doesn’t work for the mayor and City Council. Under the council-manager form of government, he and other city department heads work for Acting City Manager Stephanie Cutter.

Ms. Cutter should be the go-to person in city government when elected officials have questions or concerns. Indeed, she should insist upon it as a sign of respect for this office and the council-manager form of government. Then let her deal with the chief and the police department.

For his part, Mr. Thomas said he has the utmost respect for police. But he said officers have the responsibility to do their job to the highest standard.

No one disagrees. At the same time, there’s a constructive way to address such concerns and a way that’s harmful.

That’s where the problem seems rooted. More than a month ago, on Jan. 15, three elected council members — Mr. Thomas, Van Johnson and Mary Ellen Sprague — made serious allegations that the police department was under-reporting crime to paint a rosier picture of public safety. The FBI has since been brought in to investigate as an independent agency. And rightly so. The sooner the public gets those results, the sooner it can draw a conclusion.

On Thursday, however, Chief Lovett made his own prediction. He said that he believes the FBI will prove that the council members’ allegations were false. What concerned him now, he said, is that his department’s morale has taken a big hit. That’s troubling. Police officers are the public’s front line of defense against crime. They need to know that City Hall has their backs.

It’s not unusual for elected officials and bureaucrats to fuss and fume. In some cases, like the removal of the former city manager last year, the end result is healthy. But everyone must fight within the rules. That means let the City Council do the politicking; let the city manager do the managing.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

The police chief should have been the person asked the question not the city manager. What would the city manager say if asked, "I'll have to back to you on that one"? The police chief not only works for the city manager but also the citizens of Savannah. Mr. Thomas had more than the right to ask the police chief the question he did. Saying there were 100 unsolved homicides instead of 75 was "shooting from the hip" ? Just because the newspaper chooses to arbitrarily start counting from 2003 doesn't mean there are not more unsolved murders when one goes back more years. The newspaper seems more concerned about protocol rather than the real problem, crime and specifically murders in Savannah. In regards to the poor morale of the police, perhaps it stems from their immediate leadership or their demonstrated inability to solve Savannah homicides.

"It’s not unusual for elected officials and bureaucrats to fuss and fume. In some cases, like the removal of the former city manager last year, the end result is healthy. But everyone must fight within the rules. That means let the City Council do the politicking; let the city manager do the managing. "

They don't get it, yet. The "railroading" of Rochelle Small-Toney sent all kind of messages. "The end result is good." Give me a break. You got rid of one of the few visionaries you had in City Government. Now, you wonder about the "failure to follow the rules"?

"It’s not unusual for elected officials and bureaucrats to fuss and fume. In some cases, like the removal of the former city manager last year, the end result is healthy. But everyone must fight within the rules. That means let the City Council do the politicking; let the city manager do the managing. "

They don't get it, yet. The "railroading" of Rochelle Small-Toney sent all kind of messages. "The end result is good." Give me a break. You got rid of one of the few visionaries you had in City Government. Now, you wonder about the "failure to follow the rules"?

You need to get your info straight. "Unpaid bills" is a matter of "cash flow" management, actually. The money was there-ALL THe TIME. But, internal sabotage, and folk with evil intent, got to Rochelle.

OK Yulb, where is the City being led now? By whom? Where is YOUR visionary?

"Meanwhile, Wilfong wrote a personal letter to President Ford, volunteering to join his forces"at a late hour" to stop the nomination of Reagan." Yulb, who you gonna believe, Jet Magazine or me. THAT "personal letter to Ford" never HAPPENED. Oh, I was ASKED to do it-but it never happened, unless someone forged one.

Now, you and others wonder how I could "repudiate" Ronald Reagan-which I do acknowledge; and write and say several things that I did about him-which Jet accurately stated, yet be picked by him later -TWICE in less than 8 years later. Well, for one thing, I notified Reagan's people that though I would NOT got to the Republican Convention and oppose him, I would NOT support anyone against him. They were not totally happy, but they considered that a "W".

What about the Ford people? Well, what about them? I was a Reagan Man-who temporarily fell out with them. But, all the "important folk", WE knew where I was.

I'm through with "Panther stories". That time in my life was a "trying period" . But, thank God I got through it. I would appreciate that others not treat it "so lightly". But, that's your prerogative. That "period taught me a lot about myself-and about OTHER people. Part of that was "how to survive, by any means necessary".

You really don't understand, My Friend. I don't knwo why you attach "money man" to me. Just because of the MBA, and CPA? Not at all. I've been able to make money for as long as I can remember. That's easy.

I had no misconceptions of what I could "walk into this town" with or as. I came as I am-NOW. You're the one who is all intrigued about my history. You tell "parts" of it, in order to deceive. Then get in a huff when what you attempt to do gets found out, and thwarted.

As for the "welcome by the city administration", I have gotten what I need from them, and I have payed my taxes, and enjoyed my stay, here. How about you, sport?